RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2380, 17 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. strode, Esq , R. M,) CHARGE OF rniMURV. M. S. Gleeson, on hail, appea-ed to answer to the cliargo of perjury preferred against him on the information of 11. I). Maddock, Mr MacafS y for the prosecution ; Mr Ho worth for the defence. Mr Macassey said, since the ease was brought before the Court, he had referred to the staiute of 18G7, bearing upon the ease and upon the charge brought against his client by the defendant. He then became aware that the prosecution by Mr Gleeson must have failed under that section,of the Fraudulent Trustees Act, 1860, which required the consent of the Attorney-General before inst luting proceedings as a preliminary step ; but he was willing to waive that objection, in or 'or that the charge against him might be disproved on its merit i But a still more formidable difficulty existed, which was, that the Act under which the information was laid had been repealed. It was necessary, in order to sustain a charge of perjury, that the oath should have been administered before a competent tribunal ; but ip tjic absence q£ those two requirements to support au information sneli as had been laid by Mr Gleeson against his client, it was evident that his Worship had no jurisdiction, and consequently the charge of perjury could not 1)0 sustained. As therefore itwas utterly useless to press proceedings further, on the part of Mr Maddock he was instructed to withdraw the charge. At the same time he would say that that withdrawal had not been brought about by anything said by Mr Gleeson or his attorney. The withdrnval was Mr Haddock's, and his alone. Mr Ho worth said he was instructed to say ou India f of his client that he felt great 1 indignation at the course taken by the informant, as the withdrawal of the charge deprived him of the opportunity of shewing ; on the merits of the ease, that there really j was not the slightest foundation for the

charge. It was postpone! at his (Mr Ho* worth’s,request in order that be might have time to master the details of the original case, and he was iu’trneto 1 to state that Mr Glccsoii had some reasonable ground for entering upon tint prosecution. At any rate as far as the charge o? perj nry was concerned, he could without the slightest difii nilty clear himself of it. lie was also instructed to say that since the prosecution had adopted the course of proceedings of wlroh he. complained the nutter would • ot be allowed to rest, as Mr Glcosou was determined the matter should be investigated, not by critnin d but by civil nroe edio js ; in which case he elt conlident he would to a very great extent vindicate the charges lie hid made. He might sta l o at once that to so me extent Mr Glee-mu admitted he had been in error, so far as the LIOO mentioned in the receipt; but as to the balance of the trust fund, he would he able to show that it was available at the present time for the purposes mentioned in the trust deed. Neither Mr Glceson nor he (Mr Howorrh) had any control over the present proceedings. So f.v as lie was concerned he induced the withdrawal of the former proceedings, knowing they were abortive, and now Mr Mad ook turned round, witho t giving Mr Glees ui an opportunity of refuting his statements. He could not sit down without exnressing his s : use of the injustice done to his client. The prosecution was commenced with indecent precipitancy. His client had hardly left the witness box hefo c it was known that the charge would he made against him, and the information was sworn before his Worship while the other case was pending. Ho could scarcely conceive it possible that such a course would bo consented to. It was not the practice to do so at Home, nor in any Court he ever heard of. A little prior investigation with the legal acumen of his learned friend (Mr Macassey) would have been sufficient to have shorn him that the charge of perjury would not be sustained. He (Mr How.trlh) saw at a glance it must fail, as in order to sustain the charge there must he judicial proceedings, and the person taking upon himself the administration of the oath must have jurisdiction. Mr Macassey must have foreseen the charge could not be sustained, and therefore it seemed somewhat unfair to enter upon it, as it gave Mr M ddock an opportunity of making a statement that its withdrawal prevented Mr Glecpon from refuting. On behalf of that gentleman ho might say that lie regretted having acted with some precipitancy, which he would not have d ue’ had ho had the benefit of legal advice. His learned friend had stated that the proceedings were a monstrous abuse of the power of laying informations by private pers ms. It was certainly a pity his client did not take advice, for then ho would not have instituted proceedings without the consent of the Attorney-General, nor have laid an information under an Act that had then no existence. It was his intention to have examined Mr Maddock, and to have proved that in some important materials his memory was as defective as Mr Gleeson’s. He quite understood his learned friend’s object in addressing the Court. He himself had followed precisely the same course, so that in matters of procedure both pa-ties stood on au equal footing, but Mr Maddock had had an opportunity of making his statements which Mr Gleeson was deprived of, although he could bring documents which would establish in the m nds of every one a strong feeling as to his innocence. At any rate it was simply useless to protract the discussion further. His Worship said as the charge was withdrawn, the defendant was discharged.